VORTEX: Razor HD Gen II-E 1-6 v. Razor HD Gen III 1-10

[dan1612]

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve said it but the lume and eyebox on the 1-10 is just as good as on the 1-6, as long as you set the diopter correctly, which is more picky than on the 1-6. The only reason not to get the 1-10 is price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or because you don’t need it.
I use magnification above 3-4x for multigun inside 400.
Except maybe for sighting in.

In fact, I ran a 1-4 Accupoint for a short while after ditching the magnifier idea.

[Wake27]

If all you do is gaming, sure, you can game the game and know what you’re going to shoot. I live in an area that has several miles of visibility on a normal day though and just completed a couple weeks of special reconnaissance training with many more miles of training area. 4x optics were terribly inadequate in PID and while unlikely for a civilian in CONUS, if you do have the financial ability, seems prudent to prepare for the unexpected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

That doesn’t even mention the benefits of FFP over SFP and how much more usable the reticle is on the 1-10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dan1612]

^ Thats fair.
As always, mission drives the gear.

[WillieThom]

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve said it but the lume and eyebox on the 1-10 is just as good as on the 1-6, as long as you set the diopter correctly, which is more picky than on the 1-6. The only reason not to get the 1-10 is price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So with a properly adjusted diopter, you are basically saying that the 1x on the Gen3 is just just as fast/clear/useable/etc. as the 1x is on the Gen2?

[Wake27]

So with a properly adjusted diopter, you are basically saying that the 1x on the Gen3 is just just as fast/clear/useable/etc. as the 1x is on the Gen2?

That was absolutely my experience. It doesn’t feel like the same scope but 100% just as usable IMO. I too prioritized 1x performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ggammell]

That was absolutely my experience. It doesn’t feel like the same scope but 100% just as usable IMO. I too prioritized 1x performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will agree. The reticle being a little different is really the only thing that makes it 100% the same. Having the full crosshairs on the 1-6 brings the eye right to the center.

[WillieThom]

Thank you, gentlemen.

[Wake27]

Some other points I’d forgotten - the throw lever is not only included on the 1-10 ($50-60 extra on top of 1-6 price), it’s far easier to spin so it’s more useable. And, all other things being equal (honestly not sure that they are but I assume so), the 34mm tube will allow better light transmission so increased performance in low light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gunnerblue]

Some other points I’d forgotten - the throw lever is not only included on the 1-10 ($50-60 extra on top of 1-6 price), it’s far easier to spin so it’s more useable. And, all other things being equal (honestly not sure that they are but I assume so), the 34mm tube will allow better light transmission so increased performance in low light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tube diameter has virtually nothing to due with light transmission.

https://www.bushnell.com/through-the...in-optics.html

I'm anxiously awaiting my own Gen III Razor to go atop a Colt 901 for many of the points you listed above. Namely, the usability at 1x and the reticle subtensions remaining consistent across the higher magnification range.